Global Assessment of Palliative Care Need: Serious Health-Related Suffering Measurement Methodology.

CONTEXT: Inequities and gaps in palliative care access are a serious impediment to health systems especially in low- and middle-income countries and the accurate measurement of need across health conditions is a critical step to understanding and addressing the issue. Serious Health-related Suffering (SHS) is a novel methodology to measure the palliative care need and was originally developed by The Lancet Commission on Global Access to Palliative Care and Pain Relief. In 2015, the first iteration - SHS 1.0 - was estimated at over 61 million people worldwide experiencing at least 6 billion days of SHS annually as a result of life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. OBJECTIVES: In this paper, an updated methodology - SHS 2.0 - is presented building on the work of the Lancet Commission and detailing calculations, data requirements, limitations, and assumptions. METHODS AND RESULTS: The updates to the original methodology focus on measuring the number of people who die with (decedents) or live with (non-decedents) SHS in a given year to assess the number of people in need of palliative care across health conditions and populations. Detail on the methodology for measuring the number of days of SHS that was pioneered by the Lancet Commission, is also shared, as this second measure is essential for determining the health system responses that are necessary to address palliative care need and must be a priority for future methodological work on SHS. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology encompasses opportunities for applying SHS to future policy making assessment of future research priorities particularly in light of the dearth of data from low- and middle-income countries, and sharing of directions for future work to develop SHS 3.0.

Silver linings: a qualitative study of desirable changes to cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Public health emergencies and crises such as the current COVID-19 pandemic can accelerate innovation and place renewed focus on the value of health interventions. Capturing important lessons learnt, both positive and negative, is vital. We aimed to document the perceived positive changes (silver linings) in cancer care that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify challenges that may limit their long-term adoption. METHODS: This study employed a qualitative design. Semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were conducted with key opinion leaders from 14 countries. The participants were predominantly members of the International COVID-19 and Cancer Taskforce, who convened in March 2020 to address delivery of cancer care in the context of the pandemic. The Framework Method was employed to analyse the positive changes of the pandemic with corresponding challenges to their maintenance post-pandemic. RESULTS: Ten themes of positive changes were identified which included: value in cancer care, digital communication, convenience, inclusivity and cooperation, decentralisation of cancer care, acceleration of policy change, human interactions, hygiene practices, health awareness and promotion and systems improvement. Impediments to the scale-up of these positive changes included resource disparities and variation in legal frameworks across regions. Barriers were largely attributed to behaviours and attitudes of stakeholders. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to important value-based innovations and changes for better cancer care across different health systems. The challenges to maintaining/implementing these changes vary by setting. Efforts are needed to implement improved elements of care that evolved during the pandemic.

Redefining Palliative Care-A New Consensus-Based Definition.

CONTEXT: The International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care developed a consensus-based definition of palliative care (PC) that focuses on the relief of serious health-related suffering, a concept put forward by the Lancet Commission Global Access to Palliative Care and Pain Relief. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this article is to present the research behind the new definition. METHODS: The three-phased consensus process involved health care workers from countries in all income levels. In Phase 1, 38 PC experts evaluated the components of the World Health Organization definition and suggested new/revised ones. In Phase 2, 412 International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care members in 88 countries expressed their level of agreement with the suggested components. In Phase 3, using results from Phase 2, the expert panel developed the definition. RESULTS: The consensus-based definition is as follows: Palliative care is the active holistic care of individuals across all ages with serious health-related suffering due to severe illness and especially of those near the end of life. It aims to improve the quality of life of patients, their families and their caregivers. The definition includes a number of bullet points with additional details as well as recommendations for governments to reduce barriers to PC. CONCLUSION: Participants had significantly different perceptions and interpretations of PC. The greatest challenge faced by the core group was trying to find a middle ground between those who think that PC is the relief of all suffering and those who believe that PC describes the care of those with a very limited remaining life span.

Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of NSC 655649, a rebeccamycin analogue, given in both single-dose and multiple-dose formats.

PURPOSE: NSC 655649 was given in both single- and multiple-dose formats, to characterize maximum tolerated dose (MTD), toxicity, and pharmacokinetic profile. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced malignancies were treated with escalating doses of NSC 655649 in either a single-dose format (step 1) or a multiple-dose format (step 2). In step 1, NSC 655649 was given as a 30-60 min infusion. In step 2, the NSC 655649 dose was divided into three consecutive daily doses. Plasma and urine were sampled to assess the pharmacokinetic and excretory characteristics of NSC 655649. A total of 12 patients were enrolled at the MTD for the purpose of gender equity. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were treated with NSC 655649 for a total of 108 cycles in step 1, and 26 patients were treated for a total of 41 cycles in step 2. The MTD for both steps 1 and 2 was determined to be 572 mg/m(2). Myelosuppression was the dose-limiting toxicity. Local venous irritation was generally grade 1-2 in severity but could only be adequately prevented by administration of study drug through central i.v. access. One patient with adenocarcinoma of unknown primary experienced a partial response on step 1. Four patients experienced stable disease of >100 days duration. CONCLUSIONS: NSC 655649 may be safely given at an MTD of 572 mg/m(2) in both single-dose and multiple-dose formats. Optimally, this drug should be administered through central i.v. access.